Note 495 — Chapter XIII · WILLIAM THE LION—1165–1214.

Chron. Mel. 1209. Fordun, l. 8, c. 71. Fœdera, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 103. Robertson’s Index Introd., p. xx. Neg. tang. Ang. No. 3. Such is the account of these transactions preserved in the Scottish authorities, and the correctness of their dates is confirmed by the Fœdera and the Patent Rolls. Wendover is decidedly wrong in referring the whole transaction to one meeting only, and in placing the treaty, etc., before 28th June. The Bridlington Chronicle states that John built a castle at Berwick (i.e., Tweedmouth) in June, and that the kings came to terms in August (Documents, etc., xxi., sec. 26–27), Hemingburgh asserts that John at first demanded Alexander as a hostage for his father, the “plura et inaudita” perhaps of Fordun. In spite of the attempt of Fordun to represent the peace as the result of the interference of the principal men of both countries, it was evidently brought about through William’s aversion to war. The message that excited the wrath of John was dictated in the Council of Stirling; the envoys to deprecate his indignation were dispatched by William; and the Melrose chronicler concludes his account with the significant sentence, “It was done against the wishes of the Scots.” The extreme secrecy about the tenor of these “mutual charters” is worthy of remark. The Scots always maintained that one of the princesses was to have married the heir of the English crown, and Alexander II. afterwards obtained a grant of lands in satisfaction for his claims upon the northern counties, and for the alleged infringement of the terms of this arrangement (Fœd., vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 233). In the Patent Rolls (An. 21, Hen. III.) there is the following remark on this latter treaty, “Inter cœtera apparet quod concordia fuit quod Rex Angliæ duceret Marger’ sororem dicti Regis Scotiæ, quod modo relaxatum fuit ac al’.” All this tells for the Scottish account. On the other hand, when Hubert de Burgh was charged with preventing this marriage—in consideration of which William had agreed to waive his claims on the northern counties—the Earl of Kent replied that he knew of no such agreement, and appealed to the letters of Pandulf and others to prove that his own marriage with the princess Margaret was brought about with the full knowledge and consent of the English magnates (Mat. Par. Addit. p. 99); and the Rot. Pat. ad an. 4 Hen. III., mention an arrangement at York before Pandulf, in which it was agreed that the sisters of Alexander should be married “infra Regnum Angliæ ad honorem suum.” Hubert’s statement, however, only had reference to a guarded defence of his own conduct, and throws no light upon the events of John’s reign. It is very probable that John retained the princesses at his court for the purpose of marrying them to his own sons if anything happened to the sole male heir of Scotland; and that may have been the reason why they remained unmarried until after his death. It is not to be supposed that Hubert de Burgh overlooked the proximity of Margaret to the Scottish throne when he married her, and it must be acknowledged that his interpretation of the secret treaties, if he was really aware of their existence, was very much to his own advantage. The wording of the letter of William in the Fœdera contradicts the supposition that the payment of 15,000 marks “pro benevolentia domini nostri habendâ, et pro conventionibus tenendis,” etc., was a simple fine imposed by John on the Scottish king.